Juries

Jurors Serving on the Longest Trial in New Hampshire History Seek to Memorialize their Experience

Oftentimes jury duty gets a 'bad rap' and comes under unfair criticism. This in turn leads some to try and avoid it at all cost.  I am not going to say that there isn't room for improvement in how we treat jurors e.g., they should be allowed to ask questions and take notes.  However, I have noticed, over the years, that most people who actually serve on a jury enjoy the experience and would willingly do it again.  Here is an interesting story out of New Hampshire about jurors who sat on the longest trial in the history of the state.  At the conclusion of the evidence, these jurors all got together for a group photo to commemorate their experience

NECN: Jurors take photos as marathon NH trial nears end

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

Judge Admonished for Post-Trial Discussion with Jurors (Davis v. Husain)

A NJ Appellate court has admonished a trial judge for post trial ex parte communications with jurors.  In Davis v. Husain, an employment discrimination case, the NJ appellate court stated that

We pause to express our strong disapproval of judges who speak to jurors in cases that have been tried to conclusion, as opposed to cases that have been settled or mistried during trial. Such communications run the significant risk that one or more jurors will say something that then becomes an issue with respect to the verdict reached, as happened here.

In this particular case, the trial judge, at the conclusion of the case, met with the jurors in the jury room to talk about the case.  One juror noted to the judge that the defendant failed to place his hand on the Bible when he took the oath to testify. The judge passed along the juror's comment to the attorneys handling the case.  On appeal, the attorney for the defendant used the juror's comment as grounds for granting a new trial.  Although the appellate court found the comment insufficient to overturn the verdict, it noted its disapproval of ex parte post-trial communication by judges with jurors.

Judge vs. Jury in DUI Trials: You Might Want to Go with the Judge

If you were to take a poll of criminal defense attorneys 9 out of 10 would probably say that with all things being equal they would rather argue their case to a jury than a judge.  For a variety of reasons, criminal defense attorneys generally prefer juries over judges.  A recent study commissioned by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, however, may change that line of thinking at least with respect to cases involving Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  According to the study, criminal defendants in Massachusetts charged with a DUI received more acquittals from judges than juries.

Masslive.com: Massachusetts judges issue more acquittals in drunken-driving ...

 

 

7th Circuit Reinstates Defendant's Conviction for Threatening a Juror

U.S. v. White (7th Circuit Court of Appeals)

William White was charged with soliciting the commission of a violent federal crime against a juror in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373. The alleged solicitations at issue were messages that White posted to a website that he created to advance white supremacy, which included White’s 2005 statement that “[e]veryone associated with the Matt Hale trial has deserved assassination for a long time,” and his 2008 publication of information related to the foreperson, “Juror A,” of the jury that convicted Hale. The 2008 post disclosed Juror A’s home address and mobile, home, and work phone numbers, though it did not contain an explicit request for Juror A to be harmed.

White was tried and convicted by a jury. White then filed a Rule 29 motion for entry of a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of solicitation. The district court granted the motion, finding that the government failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that White was guilty of criminal solicitation, and that White’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. The government appeals that ruling, and White has filed a cross-appeal urging a new trial if we reverse the judgment of acquittal. After reviewing the trial record, we conclude that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that, based on the contents of the website, its readership, and other contextual factors, White intentionally solicited a violent crime against Juror A by posting Juror A’s personal information on his website. Criminal solicitation is not protected by the First Amendment, and so we reverse White’s acquittal and reinstate his conviction. Also, because White is not entitled to a new trial, we remand for sentencing.

 

Motion to Close the Defendant's Website (www.justiceforreeco.com)

Prosecutors in Montgomery County, Maryland have filed a motion asking a trial judge to shut down the following website: http://www.justiceforreeco.com/. The site was created for Mr. Reeco Richardson who is scheduled to go on trial for car theft. 

Mr. Richardson was a passenger in a car involved in a high-speed chase with the police. The chase concluded in a fiery crash in which three teenagers were killed. The police were pursuing the vehicle because it had been reported stolen. 

On the justiceforreeco website one can find information about Mr. Richardson and his pending case to include an audio recording of an unnamed woman who identifies herself as an eyewitness. The site also has links to social media sites. 

In support of the motion to shut down the website, the prosecution argues that it contains information "highly likely to taint the jury pool and confuse potential jurors."  The prosecution also states that it is not trying to infringe upon the defendant's First Amendment rights but rather is attempting "to strike a balance between protecting the rights to a fair trial and safeguarding free expression."

The Reason Why Jurors Should Handle Complex Cases

This article makes a great argument for why jurors should handle complex cases like intellectual property disputes.

The Register: Juries: The only reason ANYONE understands patent law AT ALL

10 Interesting Factoids About the Jury

The article below discusses 10 interesting factoids about the jury. My favorite is #5

The first woman to receive a jury summons was a schoolteacher named Eliza Stewart in 1870 in the Wyoming Territory, which had just granted women the right to vote. According to the March 22, 1919, edition of The Woman Citizen magazine, Laramie at the time was beset by a "mass of depraved humanity and desperate characters," and the town's menfolk asked the women to serve on juries to help "put down the anarchy."

Chicago Tribune: 10 things you might not know about juries

Life as a Sequestered Sandusky Juror

This article talks about the court's efforts to keep the Sandusky jurors from being contacted or influenced during jury deliberations.

San Francisco Chronicle: It's an isolated life for Sandusky trial jurors

 

Clemens' Defense Attorney Has Post-Trial Talk with Jurors at Bar

Houston Chronicle: Hardin says some jurors 'outraged' by prosecutors

 Just hours after the acquittal of baseball legend Roger Clemens, jurors gathered in the Greene Turtle Sports Bar & Grille where they told defense attorney Rusty Hardin they were "outraged" by prosecutors' relentless attacks on the star defendant...to continue reading go here.

‎

Judge vs Jury

Criminal defense attorneys routinely face the age old question of whether to request a bench or jury trial. Conventional wisdom generally says go with a jury trial absent some unusual facts. Well, if you are in San Antonio and your client has been charged with a DWI, you might want to stick with this conventional wisdom at least according to a recent article in the San Antonio Express: Juries less harsh than judges on DWI deaths. The article which examined a small pool of cases involving DWI deaths determined that the average sentence from a judge for DWI deaths was 19.4 years in prison vs. 10.6 years from juries.

To read the article in its entirety go here.